Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The tech giant's business was likely boosted by US sanctions against its Chinese rival Huawei. View the full article
    • We hear from three people who have started their own companies during the downturn in aviation. View the full article
    • Covid-19 has created extra problems this Halloween, so how are firms fighting back? View the full article
    • its a 12mts contract else why would it say till 2021 and first month..   simply states they don't charge a joining fee clever marketing ploy as people don't read things. it IS a monthly payment, that runs for 12mts.   but anyway there is stuff and all anyone can do to you.   dx        
    • Hi Slick,   Amazingly fast reply, thank you!   According to the reference on the payment it says "ON 24 SEP BCC" and the payment cleared 25th September at 11:26   I was simply told to sign up on the website by a staff member in the gym, no further information was given to me by them. The website stated that it's a rolling monthly membership that could be cancelled at any time "No contract membership JUST £14.99 a month, until 2021*" As far as I am aware there was absolutely no minimum membership length, unless there's some small print I've missed somewhere. But Harlands haven't mentioned anything about me being obliged to pay for a certain length of time so... I've attached a picture to this post of what I signed up for.   Also, I'm not sure if this has any relevance at all but the building is plastered with £9.99/month signs EVERYWHERE yet it costs £14.99 when you go on the website. False advertising 🙄 Could perhaps use that as leverage in a letter if it comes to it, I dunno? 😂
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3956 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I had a minor car accident where i hit the back of a man who was unable to drive an automatic car and he went to change gear and hit the brake, my car glided to a stop and nudged him in the back corner. He admitted it was his fault and agreed to pay for my damages. He sent a cheque which turned out to be a company cheque. The boss came back and stopped it after i had banked it. Been to see a brief who said the cheque must be honoured and i can sue for breach of contract and that the accident is now irrelevant since liability has been acknowledged in the sending of the cheque. I forgot to ask him, who do i name on the court papers. the printed name on the cheque, the signatory on the cheque or the guy who sent it?

Anyone help????

aztecmusic

Edited by aztecmusic
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure you brief is correct. As you drove into the car in front, the fault is yours, regardless of what the other driver said at the time.

It may well be therefore that his boss has realised that it is you who should be paying for any damage and has stopped the cheque.

Best to contact the company to find out why the cheque was stopped before you shell out any more money on solicitors or Court fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your brief is totally wrong.

 

You are liable for the accident, it was totally your fault, the boss of the Company was right to stop the cheque and will probably send you a bill for any damage you caused to the other car when you failed to stop in time.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Hate to disagree with some but the above two posts are as far as i'm concerned wrong and the OP is correct.

 

You can now sue the driver for the full amount of the cheque, plus interest and costs under the
Bills of Exchange Act 1882
and there is virtually no defence that they can use.

 

Under the
Bills of Exchange Act 1882
, cheques are contracts in themselves. As such, they are a promise by the drawer of the cheque that the person to whom it is addressed will be paid the money as stated on the cheque. This is the case irrespective of the purpose for which the cheque is paid and there are only very limited exceptions. If there are insufficient funds in the account to meet that promise or if the drawer of the cheque stops payment, the cheque has been dishonoured and the contract broken. You need only give notice to the bank that the cheque has been dishonoured and then you are entitled to sue them on the dishonoured cheque, get judgment and enforce it.

 

Under law, when you write a cheque to someone you effectively promise that the cheque will be honoured and if, for whatever reason, the cheque is not honoured you imply that you will compensate that person in full. So as this cheque has not been honoured you can immediately sue the driver and there is virtually no defence that the driver can raise to that claim.

 

Hope this helps

 

Derek

 

Edited by 21stcentury
Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance companies are in the whole useless. Mine paid out even though it wasn't my fault, becuase it was my word against thiers and they lied about not reversing the wrong way down a one way road I lost out. The insurance companies will work on the cheapest option should there be any doubt. Mine wouldn't budge at all as it was cheaper to pay than fight. On the up side they let me keep my no-claims and reduced my next years bill. Left them after that cheap year though.

 

Will be easier to fight if you know what your doing, as the OP has seen a brief already I suggest that they do. As for the question, the company that origonally issued the cheque I would have thought after reading 21stcentury's post because it was signed on behalf of that company by an authorised person representing them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP should go after my original post, if he goes down the insurance route this could go on for a long time and he may even loose, whereby my information means that he will win without having all the difficulty.

 

Derek

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the company paid a cheque, could be interpreted as an admission their employee was at fault. It would be difficult for them to argue they've changed their minds.

 

I was only suggesting the Insurance company route as it would be the least troublesome to the original poster.

 

Not that I trust the Insurance industry in any way.....;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your post 21st Century. Though I would have thought that when a cheque is issued in payment, that should the drawer discover that what he had paid for was not what had been agreed, he would be able to withdraw his consent to that payment. Indeed, the point is included in the BOEA 1822 under "Presumtion of Value and Good Faith"

Every holder of a bill is prima facie deemed to be a holder in due course; but if in an action on a bill it is admitted or proved that the acceptance, issue, or subsequent negotiation of the bill is affected with fraud, duress, or force and fear, or illegality, the burden of proof is shifted, unless and until the holder proves that, subsequent to the alleged fraud or illegality, value has in good faith been given for the bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your post 21st Century. Though I would have thought that when a cheque is issued in payment, that should the drawer discover that what he had paid for was not what had been agreed, he would be able to withdraw his consent to that payment. Indeed, the point is included in the BOEA 1822 under "Presumtion of Value and Good Faith"

Every holder of a bill is prima facie deemed to be a holder in due course; but if in an action on a bill it is admitted or proved that the acceptance, issue, or subsequent negotiation of the bill is affected with fraud, duress, or force and fear, or illegality, the burden of proof is shifted, unless and until the holder proves that, subsequent to the alleged fraud or illegality, value has in good faith been given for the bill.

 

What you quote covers the following type of situation:

 

1. Someone knocks on your door and says he is collecting for charity, but is not. You later discover this and stop the cheque.

 

2. Someone breaks into your house and forces you to write a cheque. When he leaves you stop the cheque.

 

3. You send someone a cheque in the post and they inform you that their post has been intercepted. You stop the cheque and someone tries to negotiate it.

 

In all these cases you will have a defence if sued on the cheque by the fraudster, burglar or thief, but not if sued by someone who takes the cheque from the fraudster, burglar or thief in good faith for value. (In fact these days with virtually all cheques being crossed "a/c payee only" the risk of a third party claiming is negligible - if your bank pays an endorsee you have a claim against your bank.)

 

If you write someone a cheque as a gift and then change your mind and stop the cheque, the payee can sue and you have no defence even if no consideration was given.

 

If you enter into a contract and pay the other party a sum due under the contract by cheque and then stop it, you have no defence even if the other party does not perform his obligations. Even if the cheque is for the wrong amount you have no defence. However, if the other party is in default or a mistake was made in the amount, you can counterclaim for breach of contract or on account of the mistake. If you win on the counterclaim you only have to pay the difference between the amount you are awarded on the counterclaim and the amount for which the cheque was drawn and justice is done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you aequitas. Just sue the driver of the vehicle and you will win with no chance of a defence under the Bill of exchange act 1882.

 

ENd result is the OP wins gets his money and doesnt have to fight with insurance company, which in my opinion he may loose out. This way is water tight.

 

Derek

Link to post
Share on other sites

21st is correct.

Once a cheque is issued it is a solid promise of payment. You could sue for the amount and would win, but (isn't there always one), if they had good cause to not pay you then they could counterclaim on you for return of the payment.

 

As for rear end shunts, there is the 'law of negligence' and comes under -

 

Failure to drive with reasonable care and skill:

 

(a) Driving at a speed greater than the speed limit, or driving at a lawful speed which is inappropriate in the light of road and weather conditions.

 

(b) Driving too close to the vehicle in front so that a collision cannot be avoided if the leading vehicle stops.

 

© Sudden braking without good cause, although gentle deceleration is not of itself negligence.

 

(d) Failure to observe road signs or traffic controls such as halt, give way or roundabouts, including going through an amber traffic light without leaving enough time to clear the junction and failure to not appreciate that traffic lights are not working properly.

 

(e) Failure to carry the lights required by law or lights appropriate to visability conditions or to use undipped headlights so as to dazzle oncoming motorists.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting thread

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your replies.

After further investigation I can confirm Derek is correct. The accident is irrelevant and the dishonoured cheque is now the arguement in question.

The person I sue is the name printed on the cheque (who the funds belong to) and there is indeed no defence for a dishonoured cheque in this instance. But for future reference, who you sue depends on whether an individual or a LTD company as separate rules apply.

Thanks Derek and to all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Aztecmusic, just progress the claim and you shouldhave no issues, my only concern for you was that if it went through the insurance company you would probably loose. Now you can win and thats the end of the matter.

 

Let us know how you get on.

 

Derek

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done Aztecmusic, just progress the claim and you shouldhave no issues, my only concern for you was that if it went through the insurance company you would probably loose. Now you can win and thats the end of the matter.

 

Let us know how you get on.

 

Derek

 

Disagree with that, whilst he will win the argument that the cheque should have been honoured the Company will probably put in a Counterclaim and will succeed in recovering the money that they pay out.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree with that, whilst he will win the argument that the cheque should have been honoured the Company will probably put in a Counterclaim and will succeed in recovering the money that they pay out.

 

If the company was responsible for the damage the counterclaim will fail. If the company was not responsible for the damage there is no basis on which to make a counterclaim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK first consider the accident (which is the crux of the matter regarding the cheque but ignore the legalities of stopping a cheque), the OP drove into the back of another vehicle, therefore they failed to drive without due care and attention. There could be a counter argument that the other person drove erratically and braked sharply for no good reason and possibly a split liability.

 

Immediately after the accident the other party writes a Company Cheque, which is then stopped.

 

The OP has an argument that it is illegal to stop a cheque and as others have said will succeed in an action to get the cheque honoured, however if they issue proceedings the Company will in my opinion issue a counterclaim saying he is not entitled to the money and they (The Company) do not accept liability and are seeking this money back. Any dispute on liability can only be decided by the Courts (that is if both parties dispute liability for the accident).

 

Therefore the Court will have two issues to decide (if a Counterclaim is received).

 

Issue 1 - Stopping a Company Cheque, the OP will win

 

Issue 2 - Liabilty, in my opinon (but it depends on what the other party argue) would at best be 50/50 at worst the OP will lose. I say it depends on what the other party say because people do not always state the same after an accident as they do when they have had time to think about it or received 'advice', ie if the other party now states that they thought something ran out into the road (ie animal etc) and they braked instinctively to avoid it then the OP will lose outright because they failed to stop in time, failed to leave sufficient space and generally drove without due care and attention. If the other party tells the truth and confirms that they braked for no good reason then liability would probably be split.

 

It matters not that the other party may originally have appeared to have accepted liability immediately after the accident (as far as liability goes, although that may now allow their insurers to refute the claim for indemnity).

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this:

 

A bangs into the back of B. A admits liablilty for the damage. A's great-aunt, C, writes out a cheque and sends it to B. She then talks to A who says that perhaps he was not responsible after all. C puts a stop on the cheque. If B sues C she has no counterclaim because there is no connection between B and C.

 

The company is in the same position as the great aunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider this:

 

A bangs into the back of B. A admits liablilty for the damage. A's great-aunt, C, writes out a cheque and sends it to B. She then talks to A who says that perhaps he was not responsible after all. C puts a stop on the cheque. If B sues C she has no counterclaim because there is no connection between B and C.

 

The company is in the same position as the great aunt.

 

With respect the Company is NOT is the same position as you describe.

 

The Company cheque was issued by the person who was involved in the accident, (probably outside of their remit with regard to the issue and use of Company cheques but that's not really salient), when the owner or someone senior in the Company are advised of this they stop the cheque.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites
With respect the Company is NOT is the same position as you describe.

 

The Company cheque was issued by the person who was involved in the accident, (probably outside of their remit with regard to the issue and use of Company cheques but that's not really salient), when the owner or someone senior in the Company are advised of this they stop the cheque.

 

Mossy

 

The Company on the one hand and its employees/shareholders/directors on the other are distinct legal entitities. Someone with authority to do so signed the cheque and it became a promise by the company to pay the amount specified on it to the person in whose favour it was drawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and the OP possibly caused damage to a vehicle owned by the Company when they ran into the back of it, hence Counterclaim

 

And the Company now having reviewed the situation do not feel they are liable and wish to recover monies paid to the OP, hence Counterclaim.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

Just to throw a spanner in the works, it turns out the driver of the other car was NOT INSURED! He has no insurance at all. Only as a named driver on his wifes policy (which wasnt the car he was driving) . I have emails from him the day after the accident confirming that he will pay direct upon receipt of estimate 4 damage to my car and did not wish to go thru insurance company!.... Interesting, You guys are making me nervous that I may lose now!!!!

Any more thoughts!!!

 

Aztec

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...